City of Burien
BURIEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 22, 2005
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
MINUTES
Planning Commission Members Present:
Robert Simpson-Clark, Jim Clingan, Rebecca McInteer, Jon Newton, Janet Shull, Michael Sumner, Barbara Williams
Absent:
None
Others Present:
Scott Greenburg, Community Development director; David Johanson, senior planner; Gerry Lindsay, recording secretary
Chair Simpson-Clark called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon the call of the roll all commissioners were present.
Agenda Confirmation
Motion to approve the agenda as printed was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Williams and the motion carried unanimously.
Public Comment – None
Approval of Minutes
A. February 8, 2005
Motion to approve the minutes as submitted was made by Commissioner Williams. Second was by Commissioner Sumner and the motion carried unanimously.
Old Business
A. Annexation Report
Community Development Director Scott Greenberg informed the commissioners that staff has given a number of presentations on the annexation report. All of the sewer, water and fire districts potentially affected by the annexation have received the report. A presentation was made to the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council (UAC), and staff participated in an informational open house attended by some 200 people. Staff also has spoken with the Southwest King County Chamber of Commerce, the White Center Chamber of Commerce and the White Center Community Development Association.
The original schedule called for having the final report completed by the end of April at the latest. Mr. Greenberg reported, however, that the schedule will have to slip by about five months. The reason is the North Highline UAC on February 17 passed a motion asking the Burien City Council to delay any formal decisions on annexation until after the UAC’s incorporation study is done, which currently is scheduled to be completed sometime during the summer months. Staff will want time to analyze that study and integrate any of its findings into the city’s final annexation study.
Furthermore, a decision has been made to add more economic development information to the final report, and to do a better job of looking at capital needs. That information will not be available until the summer months, and then staff will need time to integrate the data into the final report.
Finally, there is talk of doing some kind of a survey both within North Highline and within Burien to find out what people think about the annexation-related issues. No scope of work, schedule or budget has been developed to date.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner McInteer, Mr. Greenberg said to date little has been ferreted out about the economic development potential of North Highline. A couple of years ago, the White Center Community Development Association, in cooperation with King County, completed a business district revitalization plan. That document has a lot of statistical and demographic information and ideas for the future of the downtown part of White Center. Staff would like to further analyze that information and study more closely the redevelopment potential of the greater North Highline area using the buildable lands information and current zoning, making some assumptions as to what additional business activity there could be and the revenues that might be generated.
Continuing, Mr. Greenberg said the capital needs identified in the draft report are based solely on the King County six-year CIP, and extending some of Burien’s capital programs to the North Highline area. It is not known, however, whether or not the King County CIP is at a level Burien would choose if it could for streets or storm drainage facilities.
Commissioner Clingan asked why more work needs to be done to determine economic development potential and capital project needs if the city paid a consultant to do the same thing. Mr. Greenberg said he wrote the draft version of the study; the work of the consultants was to provide support. Several months ago there was talk of funding a full capital needs study, but the decision was made not to and to focus first on the operational study. The idea to come back to add more to the capital needs section was never thrown out.
Chair Simpson-Clark said he had a conversation with a retired fire chief who said in all likelihood the city is looking at a new fire station in the near future regardless, possibly two. Mr. Greenberg said that is possible. He added that another assumption of the do-nothing option is that there will be no fire service for the area from Seattle. Conversations about that have been renewed with the Seattle mayor’s office; there have been no resolutions but the issue is not closed, and it will take time to iron out what the final outcome will be.
Commissioner Williams noted that of the annexation process options available, the third one has been used the most. It is based on property owners and not residents. The surveys done to date, however, have primarily been focused on residents. Some effort should be put into knowing the opinions of the property owners. Mr. Greenberg said the city could elect to do some sort of mailed survey to property owners. He added that while the third option is the most commonly used in Washington state, it is not necessarily the correct method to be used for the North Highline annexation. He said in his opinion there should be an election, unless the city chooses to elect just Area E or some area smaller than the entire area.
Chair Simpson-Clark said he would like to see where the new city would rank against area cities under the various annexation options in terms of wealth. Mr. Greenberg said generating that information would not be difficult.
Answering a question asked by Commissioner Clingan, Mr. Greenberg said at the last UAC meeting it was noted that Tukwila and SeaTac have submitted letters to the UAC reaffirming their lack of interest in pursuing annexation of any part of the North Highline area. The city of SeaTac, however, intends to raise the issue at an upcoming council retreat.
Commissioner Williams commended Mr. Greenberg on the completeness of the issues and opportunities section of the annexation report.
Mr. Greenberg said staff has brainstormed six or seven additional ways to bridge the funding gap. No concerted research to determine their viability has been done as yet, however. There are also several legislative bills winding through Olympia that could ultimately be helpful to any city seeking to do an annexation.
Commissioner Clingan asked what specific reasons have been sited by SeaTac and Tukwila for not wanting to pursue any annexation options. Mr. Greenberg said neither city conducted any specific studies; the study done by Burien is the most detailed to date. Much of the property in the northern part of SeaTac is owned by the Port of Seattle. They feel the annexation area in the northern section is too disconnected from the main part of their community; they also would have some difficulties providing the area with their current services. He said he does not have a good understanding of why Tukwila is not interested. In Seattle, the mayor has indicated an interest in pursuing some annexation, but the City Council is still operating under the resolution passed in 2004 that says there will be no talks about annexation of North Highline until seven specific conditions have been met; to date none of those conditions have been met.
Chair Simpson-Clark voiced concern over ending up in a situation in which Burien agrees to annex a portion, only to be leaned on later to annex more. He said he would rather see the fate of the entire area settled in one clean action. Mr. Greenberg suggested that if there is no full annexation of the North Highline area by Burien and Seattle, the Boundary Review Board may end up forcing the issue. Of course any full annexation action could be phased over time; that approach has been taken by other jurisdictions.
Chair Simpson-Clark commented that in its current configuration, there is at least the potential that the North Highline area could incorporate and become a city in its own right. The smaller the area gets through partial annexations, the less chance of self-incorporation.
Commissioner Clingan asked what the upshot would be if all annexation efforts fail. Mr. Greenberg allowed that annexation to either Burien or Seattle could be voted down. King County could begin cutting services, though which ones to cut would be a political decision. One bill introduced in Olympia would allow the county to add a fee to utility bills. Those funds could be used as an incentive payment for cities to annex, as an incentive payment for areas to incorporate, or to subsidize urban services. Passage of the bill could possibly make the status quo more acceptable to King County.
B. Public Hearing: BMC Chapter 18.30 Development Standards
– Density and Dimensions
Senior planner David Johanson said adjustments have been made to the document based on the commission comments and direction and reviewed the specific revisions made. With regard to the definitions, he allowed that many of them need to remain because the terms are still used in sections of Chapter 18 that have not yet been addressed.
Chair Simpson-Clark declared the public hearing open.
There were no members of the public present to address the commission in the public hearing.
Chair Simpson-Clark closed the public hearing.
Motion to have the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the amendments to Zoning Code Chapter 18.30 as presented in Attachment 1 was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Williams.
Chair Simpson-Clark called attention to Section 19.17.170.3 and suggested that language should read “Any lot created prior to the enactment of any applicable state subdivision statute, provided that the development rights have not been otherwise acquired for public purpose….” He said it is his understanding that the 2500 square foot issue relates to the fact that under the previous King County rules reduction of a lot to less than half of the minimum lot size was viewed as a taking of the development potential. Compensation was made, but in the end the remaining lot was no longer a legal building lot. Title remained with the property owner, however, so that the property could be kept and used for purposes other than building a house on it. The section should clearly point out if the right to develop a property is purchased, the remaining lot is no longer a legal lot. As proposed, that issue is left open.
Chair Simpson-Clark added that the second sentence of paragraph (3) also applies to paragraphs (1) and (2). All setback requirements must be met even if the lot was created prior to the incorporation of the city. The sentence should written or formatted in a way to make that clear. Mr. Johanson proposed that complying with all applicable standards when seeking a building permit is a given. Chair Simpson-Clark agreed but held that it needs to be clearly stated anyway. He expressed a reluctance to pass into new law something that exists for reasons no one can explain. If some event causes a legal building lot to be reduced in size to where it no longer qualifies as a legal lot, the site is no longer buildable. It is not true that lots that were created as legal lots are legal to build on if something subsequently occurred to make them non-legal lots.
Commissioner Shull said she understood the concerns voiced by Chair Simpson-Clark but suggested that issues of that sort will be evident on a title report. Mr. Johanson said the city seeks title reports in cases where a lot is to be divided or where there is an application for a substantial land use. Title reports are not typically sought for single family development.
Commissioner Newton asked if there is a definition in the code for “development rights.” Mr. Johanson answered that there is not and proposed not going in the direction of creating one.
Pointing out that the instances to which paragraph (3) refers are extremely rare, Commissioner Sumner questioned whether the paragraph is needed at all.
Commissioner McInteer said Policy RE 1.3 says any lot legally created is okay to build on, provided the size of the lot was not reduced by more than 50 percent through acquisition for public purposes. Even then, such lots can still be built on provided all applicable setbacks and other restrictions can be met. The language as proposed for the code is not the same as what is written in the policy.
Mr. Johanson said paragraph (1) says it’s alright to build on any legal lot approved by Burien. Paragraph (2) says lots created prior to the incorporation of the city or prior to incorporation into the city also can be built on. Paragraph (3) attempts to say that it is permitted to build on any lot created prior to the enactment of applicable state subdivision statutes, so long as the lot was not reduced by more than 50 percent. Paragraph (3) allows construction to occur provided the lot was reduced by less than 50 percent.
Commissioner Newton proposed revising paragraph (3) to clearly state that improvements may be made on lots reduced by more than 50 percent provided all setbacks and other restrictions can be met.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that the best way to approach it would be to create a new paragraph (4) that says that any legal lot that has not been reduced by more than 50 percent of the minimum applicable size may be built on. Language that applies to all of the paragraphs should be added that says any lot, however created, must meet the setback requirements.
Mr. Johanson said he has not verified whether or not the Comprehensive Plan recognizes any lot created prior to the enactment of any applicable state subdivision statute. He said it does specifically address the issues spelled out in paragraph (2). He added that governmental bodies acting to acquire property for right-of-way should negotiate so as to avoid the situation that is the topic of paragraph (3). The problem is that there could be in Burien some lots that were created prior to any state subdivision statutes that have been reduced by more than 50 percent by governmental action.
Chair Simpson-Clark called attention to Chapter 19.17.220.4.c and suggested that the paragraph should indicate whether or not the neighboring property owner should have to agree to allowing eaves to project up to 18 inches across a lot line. Mr. Johanson said the paragraph attempts to indicate that eaves projecting across property lines in zero lot line developments are permissible as far as the city is concerned.
Commissioner Shull noted that zero lot line developments typically are constructed as a whole. As such, the proposed provision is needed in order to allow for eaves at all if the buildings are permitted to butt up against the lot line. The real issue could be down the line when someone wants to add on or remodel in some way.
Chair Simpson-Clark said the provision should not be construed as the conferring of a right to extend over a property line with the neighboring property owner’s agreement. Mr. Johanson concurred and agreed to revise the paragraph.
With regard to Chapter 19.17.220.6 and Chapter 19.17.220.7, Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that the fence height should be reduced if a retaining wall is put in. A six-foot fence should not be allowed on top of an 18-inch retaining wall, because the impact to the neighbor will be a fence seven and a half feet tall. Mr. Johanson pointed out that fence height measurement is covered in Chapter 18.35. He recommended referencing that section and making any necessary language changes there. Chair Simpson-Clark agreed.
Chair Simpson-Clark suggested that a definition of “permanent” as used in Chapter 19.17.220.8 is needed. He said his preference would be something that is not in place year round.
Commissioner Williams noted that Code Interpretation #05-02 uses the word “temporary” and includes a specific BMC reference. She asked if “temporary” should be used in place of “not permanent” in paragraph (8).
Commissioner Clingan suggested that by definition a structure is something that is permanent. Commissioner Williams held that if that is the case, paragraph (8) as written is incorrect in that there could be no structures that are not permanent.
Mr. Johanson explained that in the context of the building code, anything that sits on the ground is not considered permanent, whereas anything affixed to or installed in the ground is considered permanent.
Commissioner Shull said she would shy away from trying to define “temporary” and “permanent” because there are so many shades of gray in between. She added that setbacks are all about light and air, which makes the six-foot height limit incorporated in paragraph (9) very important.
Commissioner Sumner suggested that the differences between “temporary” and “permanent” are generally understood. It should not be necessary to craft a definition for either word.
Mr. Johanson concurred with the suggestion of Commissioner Williams to have paragraph (8) read “Temporary structures may be located….”
Motion to amend the motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendments to Zoning Code Chapter 18.30 as set forth in Attachment 1 and as amended, except for Chapter 19.17.170 paragraph (3) pending further clarification by staff, was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Williams.
The motion to amend the motion carried unanimously.
A vote was then taken on the motion as amended. The motion carried unanimously.
Director’s Report
Mr. Johanson noted that there will be no commission meeting on March 8.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Newton. Second was by Commissioner Williams and the motion carried unanimously.
Chair Simpson-Clark adjourned the meeting at 8:39 p.m.
Approved
/s/ Robert Simpson-Clark, chair
Planning Commission
/s/ Scott Greenberg, director
Community Development Department